HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-20-2016 Public Written CommentsJune 20, 2016, BLT Agenda Item Comments
Comments on the Newport Beach Board of Library Trustees (BLT) agenda items submitted by:
Jim Mosher (jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item 1. Minutes of the May 16, 2016 Board of Library Trustees Meeting
[note: especially on the latter pages of these draft minutes, I found my own comments significantly mis-
reported. Other speakers may wish to check that the substance of their comments is accurately
represented. For them I have, for the most part, offered only corrections to obvious grammatical errors.]
Page 1: Public Comments, paragraph 2: “Jim Mosher commented that upon reviewing the
Library's Expenditure Report, it seemed that the Library is a little under budget. However, he
noted that a citywide budget was released indicating that the expenditures of the Library may be
over-budgeted over budget.” [note: this comment was based on the proposed FY16-17 budget
detail posted by the Finance Department, which I may have been misreading. Looking at it again, and
comparing “2016 REVISED BUD” to “2016 PROJECTION,” it now appears to me that there are only a
very few items projected to end the year over budget. Instead, and as reported to the Board, nearly all
the line items, and the division totals, appear to be expected to end under budget.]
Page 4: line 1: “Chair King opened for public comments.”
Page 4: Item 7, paragraph 1: “Ms. Schweitzer reported that Council Policy I-7 allows for fees to
be charged for the use of the library meeting room rooms.”
Page 4: Item 7, bullet 1: “Staff is proposing to delete the Refund Charge and increase the
Cancellation Charge fee from $31.00 to $59.00 to reflect the full cost of service.”
Page 4: Item 7, bullet 2: “Staff recommends Reducing reducing the refundable cleaning
deposit from $105.00 to $96.00”
Page 5: paragraph 2, sentence 2: “Ms. Kelly answered that it was due to staff’s discretion as
that the fee has never been used, therefore it can’t justify the usage fee.”
Page 6: Item 9, paragraph 2, last sentence: “… staff stated that the Daily Pilot converted to
digital format in 2003 and then to microfilm in 2007.” [This could be correct, but it sounds
backwards. One would expect the transition to be to microfilm followed by digital.]
Page 7: paragraph 1: “Mr. Mosher suggested instead moving the local history collection to
the Sword Room and converting the present history space into a meeting area. He
mentioned the earlier conversion of the business room into the teen area for adult
usage.” [note: I did not suggest changing the teen area]
Page 7: paragraph 3: “Chair King closed public comments.”
Page 8: paragraph 1: “Chair King asked if all positions from on the board are filled.” [?]
Page 8: paragraph 1: “Secretary Johnson-Tucker noted that thanks to the Foundation Board
member Karen Clark, many revisions have been made to the by-laws …”
June 20, 2016, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
Page 8: Item VII, paragraph 3: “Mr. Mosher commented on copyright issues in the event the
library decided to convert to when patrons download digital materials from the library
databases. Mr. Mosher also stated that the Board and staff might be interested in archiving the
Board minutes and have them be in a form searchable for future use.”
Item 3. Library Activities
I love the Director’s opening quotes. However it seems to me that this month’s one (“Bad
libraries build collections, good libraries build services, great libraries build communities”) is, in
its effort to be clever, overly dismissive of the value of library collection building. The comment
may be apt for city libraries, but it would certainly seem to me there are libraries for which the
maintenance and development of the collection is their primary reason for existence and the
extent to which they fulfill that mission is the measure of their excellence. Even within the
NBPL, the development of a viable, in-depth local history collection seems to me a worthy goal,
and I don’t think devoting resources to that would make NBPL a “bad” library.
Regarding the Survey, is there a deadline by which completed questionnaires need to be
submitted? And what is planned to be done with them? I found it rather daunting to complete.
Item 6. Corona del Mar Branch Update
I fully appreciate the value of the CdM Branch to its community, but I continue to find its
proximity to the much larger and better endowed Central Library (which, historically, it predates
by many years) to be problematic.
While I appreciate the argument that the neighborhood structure of CdM is somehow uniquely
supportive of such a facility, I also continue to be believe that if such a branch were offered in an
more underserved area even farther from Central – such as West Newport or West Newport
Mesa, or East Bluff, or Bonita Canyon or Newport Ridge/Coast – it would rapidly come to be
regarded as an equally popular, beloved, “unique” and irreplaceable neighborhood amenity,
sharing nearly all the qualities attributed to the CdM Branch.
Item 7. Financial Report Comparison of the Beginning Budget to the
End of Year Amended Budget
I believe the intended purpose of this Monitoring List item is to review not just how the additional
contributions from support groups were allocated, but also what the ending status of the various
budgeted line items is expected to be. In particular, I think it is important for the Board to
understand which line items staff expects will end the fiscal year over or under budget, what the
consequences of that will be, and the extent to which unspent library appropriations will have to
be returned to the City’s General Fund. I believe that some of the unspent funds, including not
just donations, may be regarded as “encumbered” or “committed” and hence not have to be
returned. But I am not sure how those affect the next year’s appropriations.
June 20, 2016, Library Trustees agenda comments from Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
Item 8. Adult and Reference Services Update
It might be helpful to update the Board on the various classifications of library employment.
Having attended quite a few Library Trustees meetings, I don’t recall the names and duties of
the various categories ever having been made entirely clear. The report, for example, refers to
promotions from “Library Assistant” to “Librarian” and I believe there are several categories of
“Librarian.”
As a general comment, while I applaud staff’s adult programming and educational efforts, it
seems to me the effort is highly concentrated at the Central Library and very little, especially of
the live adult programming and training, is taken to the community through the branches.